Defendant\u2019s premises had been under surveillance for days before the entry and protective sweep. There was no justification for the protective sweep because there was no reason to believe anyone else was there. United States v. Dacruz, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170158 (D.R.I. Sep. 25, 2023).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cUnder these circumstances, courts have refused to suppress evidence discovered after the defendant’s unlawful act. \u2026 Here, the police had reasonable suspicion for Ross’s initial stop, and Ross responded by running and shooting at the officers. As such, law enforcement had probable cause to arrest him. See, e.g., Husbands ex rel. Forde v. City of New York, 335 F. App’x 124, 127 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that where officer heard shots and saw defendant standing alone in the direction from which the shots were fired, officer had probable cause to believe that defendant had fired the shots). [\u00b6] Ross’s arrest was supported by probable cause, and defendant’s motion to suppress the firearm recovered at the scene of his arrest should be denied.\u201d United States v. Ross, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169579 (E.D.N.Y. July 31, 2023),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 168582 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 21, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s encounter with the police at the Trailways Bus station in Omaha was consensual. He was approached but had to know he could refuse to talk to the police. United States v. Whitfield, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169717 (D. Neb. Sep. 22, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defendant\u2019s premises had been under surveillance for days before the entry and protective sweep. There was no justification for the protective sweep because there was no reason to believe anyone else was there. United States v. Dacruz, 2023 U.S. Dist. … Continue reading